Refining Earliest Settlement in Remote Oceania: Renewed Archaeological Investigation at Unai Bapot,...

This article was downloaded by:[North Caroline State University]On: 22 May 2008Access Details: [subscription number 788830114]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100767

Refining Earliest Settlement in Remote Oceania:Renewed Archaeological Investigation at Unai Bapot,SaipanMike T. Carson aa Micronesian Area Research Center (MARC), University of Guam, Mangilao, Guam,USA

Online Publication Date: 01 January 2008

To cite this Article: Carson, Mike T. (2008) 'Refining Earliest Settlement in RemoteOceania: Renewed Archaeological Investigation at Unai Bapot, Saipan', The

Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 3:1, 115 — 139

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/15564890801909722URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564890801909722

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100767

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564890801909722

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 3:115–139, 2008Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 onlineDOI:10.1080/15564890801909722

Refining EarliestSettlement in RemoteOceania: RenewedArchaeologicalInvestigation at UnaiBapot, Saipan

Mike T. CarsonMicronesian Area Research Center (MARC), University of Guam, Mangilao,

Guam, USA

ABSTRACT

Renewed archaeological investigation at Unai Bapot in Saipanrefines the documentation of chronological change during theearliest period of human occupation of the Mariana Islands.First site use was in the range of 1600 to 1420 BC, and siteabandonment occurred shortly after AD 1670. In more than2 m of continuous stratigraphy, abundant examples of potteryoccur in stratigraphic order in seven distinct occupation layerswith minor internal variations. Other artifacts include shell andcoral pendants, polished chert and shell adzes, various types offlaked stones and shells, fishhooks, and other objects. Faunalmaterials are almost entirely shellfish remains, and changes inshellfish taxa reflect a drop in sea level and associated habitattransformation in the first millennium BC. The new data supporta refined substantive evaluation of the role of early Marianassettlement as the first human colonization in Remote Oceania.

Keywords archaeology, prehistory, Austronesian settlement, Saipan, Mariana Islands

Received 17 February 2007; accepted 30 November 2007.Address correspondence to Mike T. Carson, Research Associate, Micronesian Area Research Center(MARC), University of Guam, UOG Station 117, Mangilao, Guam, 96923, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

115

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

INTRODUCTION

Renewed archaeological investigation atUnai Bapot in Saipan (Figure 1) supportsrefined documentation of the rich mate-rial assemblage and temporal sequencein more than 2 m of stratified culturaldeposits representing more than threemillennia of the known prehistoric cul-tural sequence of the Mariana Islands(Carson and Welch 2005). The newresults from Unai Bapot allow moredetailed characterization of the earliestMarianas pottery dated within the rangeof 1600 to 1420 BC, a documentedsequence of chronological change dur-

Figure 1. Location of Unai Bapot in the Mariana Islands, in relation to major culture areas andpatterns of Austronesian settlement in Near and Remote Oceania (drafted by author).

ing the sequence prior to 500 BC, andrefined dating of the beginning and endof this early period.

The Unai Bapot site contains mul-tiple layers reflecting more than 3000years of continuous occupation. Theearliest of seven distinct occupationlayers (Layer IV-A, 200 to 220 cm belowsurface) was dated 1600 to 1420 BC,and the fourth (Layer III-A, 140 to 160cm) was dated 1130 to 900 BC. Surfaceruins indicate site abandonment duringor after the use of megalithic latte archi-tecture (quarried limestone columns andcapstones) postdating AD 1000. Fr. Luisde Medina reported native Chamorro

116 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Investigation at Unai Bapot

villages in this area in AD 1670 (Levesque1995:103–104). By AD 1700, the site wasabandoned, presumably due to foreigndiseases and forced relocation of thenative population (Russell 1987:7–8).

Some of the early Marianas potteryvessel forms, design techniques, anddecorative motifs are comparable tothose of ceramics in the Philippinesdated between about 2000 and 1000 BC(Aoyagi et al. 1993; Ogawa 1993; Thiel1989) and of Lapita pottery in Melanesiaand West Polynesia dated about1500–600 BC (Anderson et al. 2002;Kirch 1997, 2001; Sand 1997). Of partic-ular interest are redware and blackwarevessels, some of which are decoratedwith lime-filled patterns of dentate-stamping or incisions. Superficialcomparisons suggest a shared ancestryor contact network for populationsthat dispersed into Near and RemoteOceania (Bellwood 1997; Rainbird1994:298–300, 2004:81–88; Shutler1999; Solheim 1988, 1996), apparentlyaround 1500–1000 BC (see Figure 1).

The linguistic perspective intensifiesthe intrigue of early Marianas settlementbecause Chamorro (the native languageof the Mariana Islands) is one of only twonon-Oceanic languages within the Aus-tronesian family in Remote Oceania (theother is Palauan). The distinct linguis-tic histories of Chamorro and Palauansuggest similarly distinct histories ofmigration and settlement when com-pared to other language communitiesin Oceania. Examination of Chamorrosyntax, phonology, and lexicon, whencompared with other Austronesian lan-guages (and discounting post-Europeancontact influences), indicates diver-gence from a distant Austronesian an-cestry prior to the development of morethan 450 related Oceanic Austronesianlanguages in Melanesia, Micronesia, andPolynesia (Blust 2000; Reid 2002; Zobel2002). Chamorro retains a few ancestral

features absent from the Oceanic sub-groups of Austronesian, and it does notinclude the mutually shared innovationsthat characterize the Oceanic languages.Linguistic evidence favors the central ornorthern Philippines as the most likelyproximal origin of populations initiallysettling the Marianas (Blust 2000; Reid2002; Zobel 2002).

Other than the new data from UnaiBapot, the oldest occupation layers inthe Marianas have been dated as early as2000–1500 BC, but additional radiocar-bon dates from the same deposits couldbe as late as 500–400 BC (Amesburyet al. 1996; Butler 1994, 1995; Craib1993; Haun et al. 1999). Prior to the newdata reported here, the archaeologicallydocumented pottery and other materialculture in the region had been mostconfidently lumped in a category of atleast 1000 years duration, approximately1500–500 BC. The early deposits atAchugao, Chalan Piao, and Unai Chuluall include a degree of site deflation,masking chronological changes in sev-eral centuries of their material cultureassemblages. The early dates closer to1500 BC validly indicate earliest settle-ment in the region, but the associatedartifacts cannot be distinguished fromthose associated with dates closer to500 BC. Possible changes within theearliest centuries of the ceramic se-quence have been unclear, so attemptedcomparisons with Philippines redwareand Oceanic Lapita pottery (in Melane-sia and West Polynesia) have beentenuous. These factors do not appearto have affected the early deposits atUnai Bapot, as described in the presentstudy.

Unai Bapot had been identified pre-viously as one of the most ancient sitesin the Marianas, at least as early as1000 BC (Bonhomme and Craib 1987;Marck 1978; Ward and Craib 1985),but the stratigraphy and material culture

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 117

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

sequence were unclear. Moreover, theprior radiocarbon dates were problem-atic due to uncertain context, large errorranges, lack of isotope ratio correction,and unavailability of a satisfactory ma-rine calibration curve and local marinereservoir correction. Renewed investi-gations involved a new 1 m contourmap of the site, recording of surfaceremains, and excavation of two 1 × 2m test units (Carson and Welch 2005).Also, the site has been recommended fornomination to the National Register ofHistoric Places (Carson 2005).

The present work discloses the basicfindings of the renewed investigation atUnai Bapot with an emphasis on the ear-liest occupation period; additional doc-umentation and contextual backgroundare reported elsewhere (Carson andWelch 2005). The following summarydescribes the surface remains, stratigra-phy, portable artifacts, faunal remains,subsurface features, and site chronol-ogy. Brief conclusions are offered con-cerning the research significance andimplications of the new data.

SURFACE REMAINS

The surface-visible component of thesite includes latte remains, a wide scatterof potsherds, and few marine shell frag-ments (Figures 2 and 3). A broken lusong(food-grinding mortar) is in secondarycontext. These findings indicate a lateprehistoric activity area, postdating AD1000. The primary activity area is mostlywithin 6.5–7.5 m above sea level, about90–110 m from the shoreline. This areacorresponds to one in a series of aban-doned coastal latte villages described bySpoehr (1957:31) as the Bapot complex.

The latte remains include two clus-ters of fallen columns and capstones ofquarried limestone. The western clusterhas been disturbed by bulldozing, but

the eastern cluster retains all of its orig-inal elements. Prior to abandonment,the columns would have been uprightand topped by the capstones supportinghouse structures (Thompson 1940; seealso Graves 1986).

The widespread potsherds on thesurface include fragments of undec-orated, thick, coarse, large vesselstypical of the period postdating AD1000 (Hunter-Anderson and Butler1995:38–40). The pottery scatter re-flects a slightly larger habitation zonethan just the latte remnants.

STRATIGRAPHY

The Unai Bapot site is especially valu-able for its intact subsurface depositsand clear stratigraphy in its deepestand earliest components, apparently dueto its setting in the most protectedpart of a sheltered embayment. Unlikeother beach sites in exposed high-energyenvironments (Carson 2004; Kurashinaand Clayshulte 1983), the subsurfaceoccupation layers at Unai Bapot haveescaped massive disturbance or oblit-eration by several centuries of culturaland natural formation processes. Otherlow-energy beach sites in the region,such as Achugao (Butler 1994, 1995) andChalan Piao (Moore et al. 1992), exhibitapparent deflation of earliest occupationperiods into undifferentiated deposits.In contrast to these examples, UnaiBapot contains separate stratigraphiclayers within the earliest centuries ofhuman occupation, although the layersfor the later centuries are roughly com-parable to the contents of other sites.

Two new test units (TU-1 and TU-2)disclosed a deep stratigraphic sequenceof seven distinct layers with minorinternal variations (Figure 4). Culturalmaterials were encountered as deep as190 cm in TU-1 and 220 cm in TU-2. The

118 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


Figure 2. Contour map of study area, showing surface remains, prior excavations, and renewedexcavations (drafted by author).

assemblage is remarkable for its range ofpottery and other artifacts, especially inthe earliest cultural layers (Table 1).

Although the upper portion of thesite deposit is disturbed, the lowerportion appears intact. The uppermostlayer (I-A) contains twentieth-centurydisturbance, evident in World War IIshrapnel, modern bottle glass, and othermaterials. The abrupt lower boundaryof Layer I-A suggests partial disturbance(and perhaps truncation) of the upperportion of the underlying Layer II-A. Inall other cases, gradual or diffuse layerboundaries indicate continued occupa-tion with a gradual change in sedimen-

tation and minimal disturbance of pre-existing deposits. Nonetheless, portionsof older living surfaces tend to becomeincorporated in successive occupationlayers, mixing a certain amount of sedi-ment and constituent material (such aspottery, shell, etc.) across the gradualand diffuse layer boundaries.

The relative proportion of small,eroded potsherds in each layer mayreflect the degree of vertical mixing ofmaterial between adjacent layers. All ofthe redware and blackware potsherdsfrom the upper layers (I-A through III-Ain TU-1, and I-A through the top of II-Bin TU-2) are highly eroded, probably


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

Figure 3. Megalithic latte remains on cleared site surface, view to east. Scale bar is in 20-cmincrements (photograph by author).

displaced from original contexts slightlyfarther landward (north). The lowerlayers (III-B, III-C, and IV-A in both units)contain no eroded potsherds, and theyrepresent the earliest in situ occupationlayers of the site.

The hardened, cemented sand inLayer III-C may be described as some-what similar to “cayrock” (Gischler andLomando 1997). The cementation oc-curred after the deposition of artifactsand midden in the original sandy matrix,or else the objects could not have beenencrusted within the cemented material.At Unai Bapot, the sand appears to havehardened due to upward-wicking andevaporation of carbonate-rich water andprecipitation of carbonates settling intothis layer. These processes would haveoccurred some time after Layer III-Cwas buried beneath some centimeters oflater-deposited sand, presumably whenthe vicinity was a stable backbeach flat.

The former mid-Holocene back-beach flat existed during a sea-level high-stand approximately 2800–800 BC in

Saipan (Dickinson 2000:737). Emergentpaleoshoreline features vary approxi-mately 1.5–1.8 m above the presentsea level around Saipan (Dickinson2000:741–742). A figure of 1.6–1.8 mmay be applied to the Unai Bapot areaspecifically. Using this information andthe depth of earliest deposits in TU-1and TU-2, initial site occupation at UnaiBapot occurred on a backbeach within50 m of the mid-Holocene shoreline.

Excavating the cemented Layer III-Cwith a mattock caused fragmentationof artifacts and midden, but it was theonly means to recover information inthis layer and to detect possible layersbelow. This procedure revealed a richassemblage not only in Layer III-C, butalso in the underlying Layer IV-A. LayerIV-A is the earliest cultural occupationat the site and is well protected by thehardened layer above it.

An indurated sand layer could pro-vide a fair indication of a mid-Holocenebeach setting in the Mariana Islands.Similar cemented sand layers have been

120 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


Table 1. Summary of traditional cultural materials recovered from TU-1 and -2, Layers I-A(youngest) through IV-A (oldest). Details divided by test unit and by arbitrary levelsare reported elsewhere (Carson and Welch 2005:27–28). Numbers are whole counts.Numbers in parentheses are cm2 for potsherds and total grams for all other items.

Material I-A II-A II-B III-A III-B III-C IV-A

Pottery

Uncolored,

undecorated

1167

(6639)

80 (415) 308

(1615)

36 (103)

Uncolored,

decorated

14 (123) 5 (47) 7 (23)

Redware,

undecorated

64 (218) 40 (139) 960

(3431)

713

(1495)

1229

(2416)

1712

(3469)

1727

(3224)

Redware,

decorated

1 (4) 3 (40) 2 (75)

Blackware,

undecorated

1 (2) 13 (41) 47 (136) 95 (294) 71 (205)

Blackware,

decorated

1 (3) 3 (17) 4 (28) 7 (24)

Flaked material

Andesite 14 (318) 5 (11) 1 (3) 1 (24) 2 (14)

Chert 26 (149) 1 (19) 28 (90) 7 (24) 5 (34) 10 (58) 8 (28)

Quartz 2 (34) 1 (7) 1 (15) 1 (1)

Marine shell 11 (58) 1 (2) 2 (5)

Tools

Slingstone 1 (34) 1 (71) 1 (37)

Adze 1 (97) 1 (42) 3 (127) 2 (24)

Spear point 1 (1) 3 (4)

Fishhook 1 (< 1) 2 (1)

Lime container 1 (63)

Abrader 1 (3)

Cut shell 2 (9)

Ornaments

Shell bead 1 (< 1) 3 (2) 2 (< 1) 1 (14) 1 (2)

Shell armlet 1 (5)

Shell pendant 1 (< 1) 1 (1)

Coral pendant 1 (1)

Modified shell 1 (1)

Faunal remains

Shellfish remains 1205

(2950)

320 (907) 3874

(8946)

1313

(3227)

1254

(3117)

1280

(3076)

1063

(1995)

Fish bone 2 (1) 10 (12)

Bird bone 1 (< 1) 3 (1) 1 (< 1) 9 (2.2) 3 (1)

Human bone 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (2)

Unidentified

bone

4 (7) 4 (1) 1 (< 1) 2 (12) 6 (4)


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

Figure 4. Profile of TU-2, view to west (drafted by author).

reported in other early sites in theregion (Moore et al. 1992:23–26), butthe regional-scale implication was notnecessarily recognized. However, not allcemented layers are the same as that de-scribed for Unai Bapot, and others maybe beachrock, trampled living floors, orother formations.

POTTERY

The pottery assemblage includes 3259sherds (9630.5 cm2) from TU-1 and5051 sherds (14435.5 cm2) from TU-2. Given great variance in potsherdsize and thickness, total surface area

offers a useful quantitative measure.Otherwise, the large pieces of thick,substantial vessels typical of the laterperiod would not be comparable withthe much smaller pieces of very thin,small vessels typical of the early period.Moreover, the hardness of one of thelowest layers (Layer III-C) required amattock to loosen the deposit, therebycausing additional fragmentation of theceramic remains in the lower part of theexcavations.

The pottery assemblage containssamples of almost every major typein the known prehistoric ceramicsequence for the Mariana Islands in

122 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


stratigraphic order (Hunter-Andersonand Butler 1995:24–27, 35–40; see alsoButler 1994, 1995; Graves et al. 1990;Moore 1983). The lowest layers yieldedabundant redware and blackware, andthe upper layers yielded abundant thickand coarse plainware (Figure 5). In addi-tion to the descriptions provided here, afew ambiguous potsherds may representportions of lids, footings, pans, or othercomponents or shapes; however, thesespecimens are too small in size and num-ber to support definitive conclusions.

Most of the early redware and black-ware potsherds represent very thin-walled vessels with complex shapes,although some nearly straight-sided ves-sels are also present. The red colorappears to have been applied as a slipover a burnished surface. For somesherds (here labeled “blackware”), thepaste is black or very dark gray, alongwith a faintly applied black or very darkgray slip over a lightly burnished surface.The blackware potsherds tend to bethinner (mostly 0.5–2.0 mm) and alsomore friable than their typical redwarecontemporaries (mostly 1.5–5.0 mm).Butler (1994:23) has noted a “buff” colorin the Achugao assemblage (see alsoButler 1995), but it was not observedin the Unai Bapot collection. For bothredware and blackware, petrographicexamination by William R. Dickinson(2006:143) revealed that the dominantsand temper inclusions are calcareous,yet low frequencies of both andesiticand dacitic aggregates indicate that thetemper recipes are mixed calcareous-terrigenous.

Blackware was first described atanother unusually deep (2+ m) andearly deposit adjacent to the “House ofTaga” site of Tinian Island (Pellett andSpoehr 1961). At that site, the black-ware sherds exhibited dentate-stampeddesigns, and the more frequent red-ware sherds displayed various incised

patterns. Although most recent studiesof Marianas ceramics mention blackwareas a variant within a larger redwarecategory (Hunter-Anderson and Butler1995:36–38; see also Butler 1994, 1995),the term does appear to have at leastsome merit to describe a particularpottery style in its own right. At UnaiBapot, the primary context of blackwareis restricted to the earliest occupationlayers, whereas redware continues indeclining frequency in later layers.

A small amount of decorated red-ware and blackware pottery was foundnot in the earliest layer (IV-A), but ratherin the second and third layers (III-C andIII-B). The primary decorative techniqueincludes fine dentate impressions andstamping to fill spaces between incisedparallel lines, named “Achugao Incised”by Butler (1994, 1995). A less commontechnique involves only incised circlesand lines, without dentate impressions,named “San Roque Incised” by Butler(1994, 1995). The decorations are lim-ited to the most visible upper zonesof the vessels, between the rim andthe shoulder or carination (see Figure5). Traces of lime-filling are visible insome of the dentate impressions andincisions. The blackware sherds displayboth dentate-stamping and incision con-sistent with the “Achugao Incised” type,and the redware sherds display onlyincision consistent with the “San RoqueIncised” type.

Compared to the potsherds recov-ered from Achugao (Butler 1994, 1995),the decorated redware and blackwarespecimens from Unai Bapot occur inlow frequency and accordingly with lessdiversity. At the Achugao site, Butler(1994, 1995) reported “Achugao In-cised” decoration on red, black, and buff-slipped potsherds, with “San Roque”decoration on only black and buff-slipped potsherds. Essentially the re-verse pattern is evident at Unai Bapot,


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

Figure 5. Samples of excavated pottery with reconstructed vessel shapes in stratigraphic order.Horizontal black bars beneath items indicate duration of presence in occupation layersat Unai Bapot (drafted by author).

124 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


but a larger sample size may be neededto address the reality of the apparentdifferences.

The stratigraphic association of thefinely decorated pottery appears con-trary to prior claims (made before theavailability of the Unai Bapot data)that these styles coincide with earli-est settlement in the region (Rainbird2004:81–82). Clearly they are very early,but the earliest occupation layer atUnai Bapot did not yield decoratedpotsherds. The extreme paucity of dec-orated sherds suggests a possible sam-pling error, but the amount of excava-tion (two 1 × 2 m units) and abundanceof potsherds (thousands of cm2) maybe viewed as compelling qualitatively.Layer III-C (the second occupationlayer) produced nine decorated sherds(99 cm2) compared to 1807 undecoratedsherds (3763 cm2). Layer IV-A (the earli-est occupation layer) produced 1798 un-decorated sherds (3429 cm2). Moreover,some of the undecorated redware andblackware sherds in Layers III-C and III-Bexhibited color range, hardness, thick-ness, and non-plastic inclusion compo-sition consistent with the decoratedsherds, but no such sherds were en-countered in Layer IV-A. Although theseresults are intriguing, a larger excavationwill be desirable for more convincingquantitative data. A larger sample mayyet reveal that decorated pottery wasrare in the earliest occupation layerbut became more prevalent later atUnai Bapot, and indeed such a situationwould deserve explanation.

From the intermediate occupationlayers (III-A through II-A), some pot-sherds showed either incised circlesor notched chevrons on the top ofthe rim. A single potsherd displayed apattern of incised lines and circles justbelow the rim. All of these potsherdsappeared to have a slight red slip, butthey are not burnished or treated in

the same way as the earlier redwarepottery.

From the intermediate and upperoccupation layers (II-B through I-A), theuncolored (i.e., not redware or black-ware) potsherds appear typical of thelatte-building period ca. AD 1000–1700,well defined by other investigations(Graves et al. 1990; Moore 1983). Thesepotsherds generally are thick and coarse,and they represent rather large pots.Some rim pieces display simple inci-sions. Exterior surface wiping and comb-ing are evident on a few body sherds.The rim profiles indicate both openand restricted bowls, often with rimsthickening toward the vessel interior.A number of bases indicate substantial,heavy vessels, but they cannot be fittedwith the available body or rim pieces.

FLAKED MATERIAL

The flaked assemblage includes an-desite, chert, quartz, and marine shell.Chert is by far the dominant material.The shell specimens appear to be ofTridacnidae (giant clam). Although onlychert flakes are in the earliest layer (IV-A), all material types are present in thesecond occupation layer (III-C). Nearlyall of these artifacts are flakes, but a feware flaking cores.

TOOLS

The traditional tool assemblage includesslingstones, bone spear point pieces, alime container, an abrader, adzes, andfishhooks (Figure 6). Cut and polishedpieces of nacreous marine shell likelywere discarded debris from manufactureof fishhooks or other items.

Although slingstones are oftenthought to be of intermediate to late pre-historic age (approximately first to sec-ond millennia AD), a slingstone-shaped


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

Figure 6. Samples of excavated stone, shell, and bone tools. Top row: left, beachrock slingstone-shaped object from Layer III-B in TU-1; right, limestone slingstone from Layer II-B inTU-2. Second row: left, three pieces of bone spear point from Layer II-B in TU-1; right, limecontainer of Turbo sp. shell form Layer II-A in TU-2. Third row: left, Conus sp. shell adzefrom Layer I-A in TU-2; right, two fragments of polished chert adze from Layer III-C inTU-1. Bottom row: left to right, fishhook fragments from Layer II-B in TU-1 and TU-2 andpossible manufacturing debris from Layer IV-A in TU-2 (photograph by author).

126 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


object made of beachrock was recov-ered from Layer III-B in TU-1. Thisobject, however, may have functionedother than as a slingstone, for examplepossibly as a fishing sinker or net weight.The redware pottery and stratigraphicposition of Layer III-B indicate a dateperhaps of the middle to late firstmillennium BC. One definite limestoneslingstone was from Layer I-A of TU-1, and another was from Layer II-B ofTU−2, consistent stratigraphically andby pottery association with a post-AD1000 date.

Three pieces of apparently the samespear point of carved human bone werefound in the upper level of Layer II-B in TU-1. The associated pottery sug-gests a date of the first millennium AD.Another isolated piece was recoveredfrom Layer I−A in TU-1. McNeill (2005)has reviewed the use of these artifactsas particularly dangerous weapons interms of mechanical efficacy, carriers ofinfectious bacteria, and religious beliefs.

A modified Turbo sp. shell contain-ing traces of lime powder (presumablyassociated with chewing of betel nut[Areca catechu], a mild stimulant) wasfound in Layer II-A of TU-2. The strati-graphic position and association withlarge, coarse pottery suggests a post-AD1000 date.

A single coral abrader in Layer II-Bof TU-2 may have served a wide varietyof possible uses. Some of the morelikely uses may have been for fashioningfishhooks or polishing shell ornaments.

The adze specimens included mate-rials of chert, andesite, and marine shell.A polished chert adze fragment and onesmall polished piece were found in LayerIII-C in TU-1, and other polished pieceswere in Layers III-B and II-B. A singleandesite adze fragment was recoveredfrom Layer III-B in TU-2. A nearly wholeadze of a large Conus sp. shell was foundin the top level of Layer I-A in TU-2.

The fishhook assemblage consistsof only three specimens, including oneeach from Layer I-A in TU-1, Layer II-B inTU-1, and Layer II-B in TU-2. Fragmentsof cut and polished nacreous marineshell could indicate discarded fishhookmanufacturing debris in Layer IV-A ofTU-2.

ORNAMENTS

The ornament assemblage includes shellbeads, a fragment of a shell arm ring,pendants of polished nacreous marineshell, one object of Anadara sp. shell,and a coral pendant (Figure 7). Thesematerials most likely pertain to personaladornment.

The shell beads and other cut shellswere found throughout almost the en-tire stratigraphic sequence. All of theseobjects appear to have been made ofcut and polished Conus sp. shells. Therecovered specimens exhibit some varia-tion in diameter and thickness, and theyalso reveal various firms and stages ofmanufacturing.

A single shell arm ring fragment waspresent in the middle of Layer II-B in TU-1. This specimen appears to be of cutand polished Conus sp. shell. The sizesuggests an armlet, but it may have beena bracelet, anklet, or simple suspendedpendant.

Two pendants of cut, drilled, andpolished nacreous marine shell werefound in Layers III-B and III-C in TU-2.The material could be of Isognomon sp.,Pinctada sp., or other similarly lustrousmarine shell. Both pendants were mostlikely suspended by a cord and probablyworn around the neck.

One piece of cut and polishedAnadara sp. shell was recovered fromLayer III-C in TU-2. The exact use of theitem is uncertain. It may have been onecomponent of a multi-piece ornamentalobject. One polished portion is about


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

Figure 7. Samples of shell and coral ornaments. Top row: sample of Conus sp. shells in variableforms and manufacturing stages. Second row: left, pendant of nacreous marine shellfrom Layer III-B in TU-2; middle, pendant of nacreous marine shell from Layer III-C inTU-2; right, armlet fragment of Conus sp. shell from Layer II-B in TU-1. Bottom row: left,modified Anadara sp. shell from Layer III-C in TU-2; right, unique coral pendant fromLayer IV-A in TU-2 (photograph by author).

the size and shape of an adult humanthumbprint, and this possible “grippingsurface” could suggest a tool rather thanan ornament.

A unique coral pendant was presentin the lowest layer (IV-A) in TU-1. Thisobject includes a drilled hole at one end,and the other end has been shaped toa point. One face has been abraded orpolished to present a smooth surface.

MARINE SHELLFISH REMAINS

The shellfish assemblage reveals a num-ber of intriguing patterns, suggestive ofboth resource gathering strategies and

natural habitat transformation (Figure8). As certain shellfish are sensitiveto environmental conditions, somechanges in the shellfish assemblageprobably reflect habitat change dueto sea-level fall after the mid-Holocenesea-level highstand. Most relevant tothe present study, Amesbury (1998, inpress) has documented a marked declinein Anadara sp. shells after lowering ofsea-level and loss of mangrove habitats inthe Mariana Islands (see also Amesburyet al. 1996). At Unai Bapot, Layer III-Aappears to represent the last occupationprior to the beginning of noticeablesea-level drawdown. The drawdownprocess took place over a number of

128 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


Figure 8. Chronological trends in marine shellfish remains. Top: mean grams per shell specimen ofAnadara sp. and Patellidae in TU-2, Layers I-A (youngest) through IV-A (oldest). Bottom:grams of key shellfish taxa per 100 liters excavated in TU-2, Layers I-A (youngest) throughIV-A (oldest) (drafted by author).


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

centuries in the first millennium BC, andperhaps it was not complete until thefirst few centuries AD (Dickinson 2000,2003; Dickinson and Athens 2007; seealso Grossman et al. 1998).

The mean weight of shells (as aproxy for size) provides an estimateof the maturity or health of shell-fish captured in the local environment.Anadara sp. inhabit mangroves andswampy locales, and a sharp decline inmean size after Layer III-A indicates adisruption of this habitat. Spenneman(1987) noted a similar situation in Tonga,and Amesbury (in press) has examinedthis dynamic in detail in the MarianaIslands. Different species of Patellidae(limpets) are habitat-specific and typi-cally restricted to rocky shores, and theiroverall size decrease at Unai Bapot (butmost especially after Layer II-B) couldsuggest habitat disruption due to low-ered sea level or other factors. Althoughan environment-driven model is attrac-tive, the possibility of size-reduction dueto over-predation of immature speci-mens must be considered until moreanalysis is conducted. Amesbury et al.(1996) reported very similar shellfishdata and presented much the sameinterpretation of coastal habitat changefor the Chalan Piao site in Saipan.

By coupling the mean size datawith total grams of the most frequentand environmentally sensitive shellfishtaxa per 100 liters of excavation ineach occupation layer, a clearer pictureemerges about the shellfish assemblage.The maximum mean size of capturedAnadara sp. in Layer III-A coincidedwith a slight decline in the total densityof these shells and a dramatic decline inboth measurements occurred after LayerIII-A. For Patellidae, the overall shelldensity decreased steadily over time,most sharply after Layer III-B, slightlyahead of the pattern for Anadara sp.shells. Tellina sp. and Strombus sp.

also decrease in density steadily overtime, with a slight increase in LayerII-B possibly to counter the dramaticloss of Anadara sp. shells. Haliotis sp.(abalone) declines noticeably after LayerIV-A, becomes virtually non-existent af-ter Layer III-B (four specimens in LayerIII-A and one small fragment in Layer II-B), and entirely non-existent after LayerII-B. Echinoderm (sea urchin) shells arerestricted to only the first two occu-pation layers (IV-a and III-C), althoughtheir spines are present through LayerII-B perhaps as potential abrading toolmaterial (yet none exhibited signs ofabrasion).

Layer III-A represents a turningpoint in the shellfish assemblage. Inthe preceding occupation layers (IV-A through III-B), most major shellfishtaxa declined steadily in overall den-sity, while captured Anadara sp. shellsactually increased in density as wellas in mean size. Echinoderm shellsdisappeared during this early time in-terval, and Haliotis sp. became vir-tually non-existent. After Layer III-A,Anadara sp. shells declined dramat-ically, while other shellfish taxa in-creased slightly in Layer II-B and thenlater re-joined the overall decliningtrend.

The decline in Anadara sp. afterLayer III-A indicates a disruption andeventual loss of mangrove habitat thateventually was lost entirely. Elsewherein the Mariana Islands, Amesbury (1998)reports that a lower post-highstand sealevel replaced former marshy condi-tions and mangroves with newly openedsandy environments more suitable forStrombidae and other gastropods, whilemost bivalves diminished in frequency(see also Amesbury et al. 1996). ForUnai Bapot, a similar pattern is unclearwith respect to late-period increase ingastropods, perhaps due to the shelteredembayment or other factors. However,

130 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


the rapid fading of Anadara sp. is clearafter Layer III-A.

The shellfish assemblage also revealsa change over time in resource gatheringstrategies and local diet. The earliestoccupation layers include substantialamounts of varied shellfish taxa, special-izing in Anadara sp. When the Anadarasp. population begins to decline during,but especially after Layer III-A, othershellfish taxa are collected in greaterabundance, albeit temporarily in LayerII-B. Afterward, in Layers II-A and I-A,shellfish overall are in low density, andother food items must have constituteda larger portion of the local diet.

VERTEBRATE REMAINS

The excavations recovered only a smallamount of vertebrate remains. Of threehuman teeth in TU-1, one worn molarwas in Layer I-A, and two canine orpremolar fragments were in Layer II-B. Asingle human phalanx was in Layer III-Aof TU-1. David W. Steadman examinedthe non-human bones. Few specimens offish (N = 12), bird (N = 14), and uniden-tified vertebrate bones (N = 17) wererecovered from Layers III-C through I-Ain both TU-1 and TU-2. From the earliestoccupation layer (IV-A), only three birdbones were in TU-2.

SUBSURFACE FEATURES

The excavations revealed two types ofsubsurface features ideal for obtainingdatable materials from secure contexts:1) in situ combustion features, and 2)localized discard piles. These featurescontain variable amounts of charcoaland Anadara sp. shells, both of whichare potentially suitable for radiocarbondating. Only a few were visible in theexcavation profiles, and most were en-

countered in the middle areas of the twoexcavation units.

The in situ combustion features (or“firepits”) are present in Layers II-B (twoin TU-1 and one in TU-2) and III-A (onein TU-1 and another in TU-2). They arenearly circular in plan view, and they arebasin-shaped in section view. They aresmall (10 to 30 cm diameter) and shallow(5 to 15 cm thick), with characteristicfire-hardened and reddened sedimentaround their perimeter and underside.These features appear to have beendug into the sediment as small hearths,originating in a former living surfaceequal to their uppermost vertical pointof origin.

The localized discard piles arepresent in Layers III-B (two in TU-1),III-C (two in TU-1 and one in TU-2),and IV-A (one in TU-1 and two in TU-2).They are oval in plan view, and theyare lens-shaped or slightly mounded insection view. These features range 5 to10 cm wide, 15 to 20 cm long, and 5to 10 cm thick. They bear no evidenceof fire-hardening or reddening. Thesefeatures appear to represent concen-trations of burned refuse, discarded indiscrete piles of marine shells (primarilyAnadara sp.) and trace amounts ofcharcoal in an ashy matrix.

CHRONOLOGICAL DISCUSSION

The seven distinct layers provide rea-sonable chronological control for theUnai Bapot site. The stratigraphic se-quence clearly shows the relative orderof changes in material culture, mostobviously in the pottery assemblage.Less obvious changes are detectable inother artifacts and in the faunal remains.

By comparing the pottery as-semblage with the established ce-ramic sequence for the Mariana Is-lands (Hunter-Anderson and Butler


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

1995:24–27, 35–40; see also Butler1994), these artifacts indicate contin-uous occupation from at least 1000BC through approximately AD 1500 to1700. Almost every previously describedmajor pottery type of the Marianas isrepresented in stratigraphic order.

The well stratified deposits allowmore precise dating of the earliestperiod in the ceramic sequence thanhas been possible at other sites. Inother cases, the earliest component isa narrow band with some amount ofdisturbance, and deflation also may haveoccurred. The deepest portion of theUnai Bapot site was unaffected by eitherof these conditions, due to the shelteredsetting and the post-depositional cemen-tation of Layer III-C.

Each of the three earliest layers (IV-A, III-C, and III-B) contains abundant red-ware and some blackware variants, butthe finely decorated wares (“AchugaoIncised” and “San Roque Incised”) areabsent from the earliest layer (IV-A). Thedecorated pottery is clearly early, butit is not demonstrable as the earliestin the stratigraphic sequence. A largersampling of the site may reveal if thedecorated wares are truly absent or elsein extremely low frequency in the earli-est layer (IV-A), and either case wouldconstitute an important chronologicalcontribution.

Perhaps the most striking change atthe site over the past three millenniawas due to a drop in sea level of1.6–1.8 m after the mid-Holocene high-stand (Dickinson 2000:741–742), appar-ently beginning to fall around 800 BC(Dickinson 2000:737). The shellfish as-semblage reflects the beginning of post-highstand sea-level fall and degradationof mangrove habitat after Layer III-A. Thecemented Layer III-C was a former mid-Holocene backbeach flat, implying thatthe underlying Layer IV-A was in a similarsetting during the mid-Holocene sea-

level highstand. The interface of LayersIII-C and IV-A in TU-2 was approximately2.7 m above the maximum altitude ofthe mid-Holocene sea level. This settingsuggests that people were living on astable backbeach within 50 m of theformer high-tide mark. Today, the sur-face of TU-2 is about 100 m from theshoreline.

The richness of the cultural depositso close to the mid-Holocene shorelineraises a question about whether the fullextent of the earliest site occupationmay have been even closer to the shore.The coarseness of the sands in thelowest layers, however, suggests that theearliest deposits at TU-1 and TU-2 wereslightly inland of a beach berm on a moreor less stabilized back dune or back-beach surface. A deposit significantlycloser to the shore would have beenseaward of the beach berm and perhapsin an intertidal zone. The possibilityof intertidal or shallow subtidal housesraised on stilts has not been adequatelyaddressed.

Dating of the earliest occupationat Unai Bapot is confirmed by tworadiocarbon dates of burned Anadaraantiquata shells in a single localizeddiscard pile in Layer IV-A (Table 2). Thetwo dates overlap at 1600–1420 BC at 2σ

(95.4% confidence). The dated featureconsists of a small mound of burnedshells with sparse charcoal flecking anda few potsherds, deposited at 212 cmdepth, about midway through the accu-mulation of the earliest occupation layerof the site (IV-A, 200 to 220 cm). The cal-ibration was done using OxCal (BronkRamsey 2001) and the 2004 marinecalibration curve (Hughen et al. 2004). Alocal reservoir correction (�R) of 75 ±

35 years BP was applied (Fiona Petchey,personal communication 2006), poolingthe recommended value of 19 ± 50 forGuam (online database; see Reimer andReimer 2001) with a recalculated value

132 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


Table 2. New radiocarbon dating results from Unai Bupot.

BetaSample # Provenience

MeasuredRadiocarbon

Age

13C/12CRatio (�)

ConventionalRadiocarbon

AgeCalibrated Date

Range∗

214761 TU-2, Layer III-A,

combustion

feature, charcoal

flecks∗∗

2850 ± 40 BP − 25.8 2840 ± 40 BP 1 � (68.2%): 1050

to 920 BC

2 � (95.4%):

1130 to 900 BC

202744 TU-2, Layer IV-A,

localized discard

pile, Anadara

sp. shell∗∗∗

3210 ± 40 BP − 1.5 3590 ± 40 BP 1 � (68.2%): 1520

to 1380 BC

2 � (95.4%):

1600 to 1320 BC

216616 TU-2, Layer IV-A,

localized discard

pile, Anadara

sp. shell∗∗∗

3320 ± 50 BP − 1.1 3710 ± 50 BP 1 � (68.2%): 1670

to 1500 BC

2 � (95.4%):

1740 to 1420 BC

∗Calibrations are by OxCal (Bronk Ramsey 2001).∗∗For charcoal dates, the 2004 terrestrial calibration curve is used (Reimer et al. 2004).∗∗∗For marine shell dates, the 2004 marine calibration curve (Hughen et al. 2004) is used, with a

local reservoir correction (�R) of 75 ± 35 years BP (Fiona Petchey, personal communication 2006),pooling the recommended value of 19 ± 50 for Guam (online database; see Reimer and Reimer 2001)with a recalculated value of 132 ± 50 for another specimen from Guam (Athens 1986:113).

of 132 ± 50 for another specimen fromGuam (Athens 1986:113). A sample ofcharcoal flecks and ashy matrix fromthe same feature and one other in LayerIV-A provided insufficient carbon fordating. Of note, earlier attempts at datingmarine shells at Unai Bapot (Bonhommeand Craib 1987) did not have the benefitof a satisfactory marine calibration curveand local marine reservoir correction.

A sample of charcoal from a smallfirepit in the fourth occupation layer(III-A) yielded a calibrated radiocarbondate of 1130–900 BC (see Table 2). Thissample postdates the abundant redwareand blackware pottery characterizingthe earliest site components, and itimmediately predates a change in themarine shellfish assemblage reflectingthe initial stages of sea-level drawdownand loss of mangrove habitat. Coinci-dentally, the radiocarbon date range is

consistent with a context immediatelypredating the end of the mid-Holocenehighstand approximately around 800 BC(Dickinson 2000:737). Moreover, thedating result emphasizes chronologicalseparation of the deepest occupationlayers at Unai Bapot.

The three radiocarbon dates fromthe present study may be compared witheight others from prior investigationsat the site (Figure 9). Unfortunately,the stratigraphic contexts of the othersamples were not reported in a way thatwould allow unambiguous comparisonwith the current work, and an apparentgap between ca. 900 BC and AD 1200cannot be addressed. Nonetheless, thecalibrated date range of 1600–1420 BC isstatistically supported for initial site usein Layer IV-A, and the constraining daterange of 1130–900 BC from Layer III-Aconfirms the early context. Moreover,


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

Figure 9. Distribution of calibrated radiocarbon date ranges. Calibrations are by OxCal (BronkRamsey 2001). For charcoal dates, the 2004 terrestrial calibration curve is used (Reimeret al. 2004). For marine shell dates, the 2004 marine calibration curve (Hughen et al.2004) is used, with a local reservoir correction (�R) of 75 ± 35 years BP. (Fiona Petchey,personal communication 2006), pooling the recommended value of 19 ± 50 for Guam(online database; see Reimer and Reimer 2001) with a recalculated value of 132 ± 50for another specimen from Guam (Athens 1986:113) (drafted by author using OxCal[Bronk Ramsey 2001]).

these results confirm multiple separatedoccupation layers in the earliest settle-ment period, previously documented byno more than a single layer at other sitesin the region.

CONCLUSIONS

The renewed investigation at Unai Bapotis most valuable for a refined and securedate of early colonization in the MarianaIslands in the range of 1600–1420 BC.A later layer in the range of 1130–900BC postdates three distinct layers withearly redware, blackware, and finely dec-orated pottery linking earliest Marianassettlement with population dispersalfrom an insular southeast Asian home-

land. The new excavations documentedchronological change during this earliestperiod of settlement, made possible bythe finely separated occupation layersand intact stratigraphy in the deepestportion of the Unai Bapot site.

Prior to the new Unai Bapot find-ings, the period before 500 BC inthe Marianas was grouped as a singleearly period (Hunter-Anderson and But-ler 1995:25–40; Tomonari-Tuggle andTuggle 2003:15), and this designationretains only some of its original utility.It refers to the initial colonization andsettlement era, prior to noticeable sea-level fall and attendant coastal trans-formations. However, this posited earlyperiod lasted 700 to 1000 years, and

134 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


clearly a number of important culturaland natural changes occurred withinthis time range. For instance, the finelydecorated pottery styles appeared anddisappeared some time after 1600–1420BC yet before 1130–900 BC. Also, theearly material culture includes a diversearray of tools and ornaments, and alarger excavation may yield a sample sizereflecting changes in these artifacts.

The earliest components of the ce-ramic sequence reveal the plain black-ware, decorated blackware, and deco-rated redware as greatly outnumberedand outlasted by plain redware. Plainredware dominated the ceramic assem-blage in the first three occupation layers(IV-A through III-B), and it declinedrapidly in Layers III-A and II-B. Plainblackware occurred in low frequencyprimarily in Layers IV-A through III-B,with a noticeable decline in Layer III-A and absence thereafter except for alone highly eroded sherd in Layer I-A.The decorated redware and blackwareoccurred in very low frequencies, andtheir primary contexts were restricted tothe second and third occupation layers(III-C and III-B).

The subordinate character of thedecorated pottery has been noted pre-viously in terms of its frequency but notin terms of its antiquity and duration.At sites such as Achugao, Chalan Piao,and Unai Chulu, vertically compresseddeposits had presented an impressionthat the decorated pottery was of equalage and duration as the earliest Marianasredware (Amesbury et al. 1996; Butler1994; Craib 1993; Haun et al. 1999;Moore et al. 1992).

The exact use context of early Mar-ianas decorated pottery is at presentunclear, but a rough parallel may beentertained with the Lapita cultural com-plex in Melanesia and West Polynesia(Green 1992; Terrell 1989, 2003). Finelydentate-stamped and incised Lapita pot-

tery occurs in very low frequency (oftenless than 5%) compared to plain andpaddle-impressed pottery, and it is re-stricted to a brief time range of no morethan a few centuries (Kirch 1997). InNew Caledonia, for instance, Lapita pot-tery first appeared around 1000–900 BC,and it ended around 800–600 BC (Sand1997). The end of Lapita reflects the lossof its associated cultural complex that isonly vaguely understood (Terrell 2003).

The termination of decoratedLapita pottery coincided (although notnecessarily causally) with the initialstages of coastal transformations andhabitat loss at the beginning of sea-levelfall in the early to middle first millenniumBC in New Caledonia (Carson 2008)and in Fiji (Nunn 2005), and a similarsituation may have occurred in theMariana Islands. Indeed, the decoratedblackware and redware at Unai Bapotno longer existed upon the very firstsigns of a change in the marine shellfishassemblage indicative of sea-level falland disruption of mangroves. Thesedecorated wares ceased productionaround or just prior to 1130–900 BC,whereas the first signs of sea-level falland associated habitat transformationsimmediately postdated 1130–900 BC.Elsewhere in the Marianas, first signs ofloss of mangrove habitat due to loweredsea level appeared some time in thefirst millennium BC (Amesbury 1998;Amesbury et al. 1996), and the processprobably took place over severalcenturies (Dickinson 2000, 2003).

Coastal transformations and habitatloss probably did not directly causethe demise of early Marianas decorativepottery and Lapita pottery styles, butthe changing environmental settingwas part of the context of the materialculture change in both cases. The earlyinhabitants in different parts of RemoteOceania faced similar environmentalcircumstances and changes. Adaptations


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

to new conditions of enlarged coastalplains, disrupted mangroves, andaltered nearshore ecosystems are notwell understood at this time, but thetermination of finely decorated potteryis consistent in Remote Oceania.

The new dating, material assem-blage, and internal temporal changefor early Marianas settlement enable amore refined understanding of humanpopulation dispersals and subsequentadaptations in Near and Remote Oceaniabetween approximately 1500 and 1000BC. The dispersal involved at least tworoutes at different times and possiblyfrom separate places of origin. Firstcolonization occurred some centuriesbefore the end of the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand in the Mariana Islands,around the same time as the first Lapitasites were occupied in Near Oceania(see Figure 1). The subsequent Lapitaexpansion farther eastward into RemoteOceania occurred some centuries later,only very shortly before the beginningof sea-level drawdown. Regardless ofthe difference in time depth of firstcolonization, the natural habitat of thecolonizing era began to change aroundthe same time when finely decoratedpottery terminated not only in theMariana Islands, but also in Lapita sitesin Melanesia and West Polynesia.

Earliest settlement in the MarianaIslands in the range of 1600–1420 BCindisputably predates Lapita expansioninto Remote Oceania about 1100–900BC for Fiji (Anderson and Clark 1999)and 1000–900 BC for New Caledo-nia (Sand 1997) (see Figure 1). Theearliest Lapita dates in Near Oceaniaare nearly contemporaneous with thenew Unai Bapot dates (Kirch 2001).Whereas the Lapita expansion appearsto have “stalled” for some time in NearOceania before expanding farther east-ward into Remote Oceania, the earlyMarianas colonization involved no such

midpoint stall before reaching this iso-lated northwestern corner of RemoteOceania. Having occurred earlier, thepopulation movement into the MarianaIslands involved a somewhat differentcultural context than for the eastward-moving Lapita colonists. The peculiarnon-Oceanic language community in theMarianas also reflects an earlier coloniza-tion than was associated with Oceaniclanguage communities elsewhere in Re-mote Oceania coincident with the Lapitaexpansion (Blust 2000; Reid 2002; Zobel2002). Similar to the linguistic model,the early Marianas and Lapita archaeo-logical materials reveal more in commonwith a shared ancestry in insular south-east Asia than they do with each other.

The Unai Bapot results are intrigu-ing, although some conclusions aremore confident than others. More datawill be available following an additional3 × 3 m excavation, underway in April2008 and co–directed by Geoffrey Clarkand the author, with key input from doc-toral students Olaf Winter and PatrickO’Day.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author conducted this work withfield assistant Patrick O’Day as part ofProject 200441 for International Archae-ological Research Institute, Inc. (IARII)under contract to the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, Divisionof Historic Preservation (CNMI-DHP).David J. Welch was the principal investi-gator for IARII. CNMI-DHP assisted withvegetation clearing and field screening.John Mark Joseph, Genevieve Cabrera,and Epi Cabrera represented cultural re-source management concerns for CNMI-DHP. William R. Dickinson performedpetrographic analysis of a sample ofpotsherds, and he also provided crucialinformation about sea-level change and

136 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


site formation. David W. Steadman iden-tified the non-human vertebrate faunalremains. Fiona Petchey offered muchappreciated assistance with marinecalibration and reservoir correction forradiocarbon dates. J. Stephen Athens,Lon Bulgrin, and Christophe Descantesprovided useful comments on an earliermanuscript draft. Peer reviewers RobertBlust, Brian Butler, Rosalind Hunter-Anderson, and John Peterson offeredcritical comments that improved thiswork. Journal editors Jon Erlandson andScott Fitzpatrick are thanked for theirefforts with this manuscript. The authorretains responsibility for the facts andinterpretations presented.

REFERENCES

Amesbury, J. R. 1998. Changes in species com-position of archaeological marine shell assem-blages in Guam. Micronesica 31:437–366.

Amesbury, J. R. 2008. Waxing and waning of man-groves in the Mariana Islands. Coral Reefs (inpress).

Amesbury, J. R., D. R. Moore, and R. L. Hunter-Anderson. 1996. Cultural adaptations and lateHolocene sea level change in the Marianas:Recent excavations at Chalan Piao, Saipan,Micronesia. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Pre-history Association 15:53–69.

Anderson, A., S. Bedford, G. Clark, I. Lilley,C. Sand, G. Summerhayes, and R. Torrence.2002. An inventory of Lapita sites containingdentate-stamped pottery. In The archaeologyof Lapita dispersal in Oceania (G. Clark, A.Anderson, and T. Vundilo, eds.):1–13. TerraAustralis No. 17. Canberra: Pandanus Books.

Anderson, A. and G. Clark. 1999. The age of Lapitasettlement in Fiji. Archaeology in Oceania34:31–39.

Aoyagi, Y., M. L. Aguilera, Jr., H. Ogawa, andK. Tanaka. 1993. Excavation of hill top site,Magapit Shell Midden in Lal-lo Shell Middens,Northern Luzon, Philippines. Man and Culturein Oceania 9:127–155.

Athens, J. S. 1986. Archaeological Investigationsat Tarague Beach, Guam. Honolulu: Interna-tional Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.

Bellwood, P. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian archipelago, rev. ed. Honolulu:University of Hawai’i Press.

Blust, R. 2000. Chamorro historical phonology.Oceanic Linguistics 39:83–122.

Bonhomme, T. and J. L. Craib. 1987. Radiocarbondates from Unai Bapot, Saipan—implicationsfor the prehistory of the Mariana Islands.Journal of the Polynesian Society 96:95–106.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of theradiocarbon program OxCal. Radiocarbon43:355–363.

Butler, B. M. 1994. Early prehistoric settlementin the Mariana Islands: New evidence fromSaipan. Man and Culture in Oceania 10:15–38.

Butler, B. M. (ed.). 1995. Archaeological investi-gations in the Achugao and Matansa areas ofSaipan, Mariana Islands. Micronesian Archae-ological Survey Report No. 30. Saipan, Com-monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:Division of Historic Preservation.

Carson, M. T. 2004. Resolving the enigma ofearly coastal settlement in the Hawaiian Islands:The stratigraphic sequence of the WainihaBeach Site in Kaua’i. Geoarchaeology 19:99–118.

Carson, M. T. 2005. National Register of HistoricPlaces Nomination for the Unai Bapot LatteSite (Sp-1-0013) in Laulau, Saipan, Com-monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.Honolulu: International Archaeological Re-search Institute, Inc.

Carson, M. T. 2008. Correlation of environmentaland cultural chronology in New Caledonia.Geoarchaeology 23 (in press).

Carson, M. T. and D. J. Welch. 2005. Archaeologi-cal Survey, Mapping, and Testing of the BapotLatte Site (Sp-1-0013) in Laulau, Saipan,Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is-lands. Honolulu: International ArchaeologicalResearch Institute, Inc.

Craib, J. L. 1993. Early occupation at UnaiChulu, Tinian, Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands. Bulletin of the Indo-PacificPrehistory Association 13:116–134.

Dickinson, W. R. 2000. Hydro-isostatic and tec-tonic influences on emergent Holocene pa-leoshorelines in the Mariana Islands, westernPacific Ocean. Journal of Coastal Research16:735–746.

Dickinson, W. R. 2003. Impact of mid-Holocenehydro-isostatic highstand in regional sea levelon habitability of islands in Pacific Oceania.Journal of Coastal Research 19:489–502.

Dickinson, W. R. 2006. Temper sands in pre-historic Oceanian pottery: Geotectonics, sedi-mentology, petrography, provenance. SpecialPaper No. 406. Boulder, CO: Geological Societyof America.


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8

Mike T. Carson

Dickinson, W. R. and J. S. Athens. 2007. Holocenepaleoshoreline and paleoenvironmental his-tory of Palau: Implications for human settle-ment. Journal of Island and Coastal Archae-ology 2:175–196.

Gischler, E. and A. J. Lomando. 1997. Holocenecemented beach deposits in Belize. Sedimen-tary Geology 110:277–297.

Graves, M. W. 1986. Organization and differentia-tion within late prehistoric ranked social units,Mariana Islands, western Pacific. Journal ofField Archaeology 13:139–154.

Graves, M. W., T. L. Hunt, and D. R. Moore. 1990.Ceramic production in the Mariana Islands:Explaining diversity in prehistoric interactionand exchange. Asian Perspectives 29:211–233.

Green, R. C. 1992. Definitions of the Lapitacultural complex and its non-ceramic compo-nent. In Poterie et Peuplement (J. C. Galipaud,ed.):7–20. Noumea: ORSTOM.

Grossman, E. E., C. H. Fletcher, III, andB. R. Richmond. 1998. The Holocene sea-levelhighstand in the Equatorial Pacific: Analysis ofthe insular paleosea-level database. Coral Reefs17:309–327.

Haun, A. E., J. A. Jimenez, and M. Kirkendall.1999. Archaeological Investigations at UnaiChulu, Island of Tinian, Commonwealthof the Northern Mariana Islands. Paul H.Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Hilo, HI.

Hughen, K. A., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, J. W.Beck, C. J. H. Bertrand, P. G. Blackwell, C. E.Buck, G. S. Burr, K. B. Cutler, P. E. Damon, andR. L. Edwards, et al. 2004. Marine04 marineradiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP.Radiocarbon 46:1059–1086.

Hunter-Anderson, R. L., and B. M. Butler. 1995. AnOverview of Northern Marianas Prehistory.Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No.31. Saipan, Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands: Division of Historic Preserva-tion.

Kirch, P. V. 1997. The Lapita peoples: Ancestorsof the Oceanic world. Cambridge: BlackwellPublishers.

Kirch, P. V. (ed.). 2001. Lapita and ItsTransformations in Near Oceania: Archae-ological Investigations in the Mussau Is-lands, Papua New Guinea, 1985-88. Vol-ume 1: Introduction, Excavations, Chronol-ogy. Berkeley Archaeological Research FacilityContribution No. 59. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia.

Kurashina, H. and R. Clayshulte. 1983. Siteformation processes and cultural sequence atTarague, Guam. Bulletin of the Indo-PacificPrehistory Association 4:114–122.

Levesque, R. (ed.). 1995. History of Micronesia:A Collection of Source Documents, Volume 5:Focus on the Mariana Mission, 1670–1673.Gatineau, Quebec: Les Editions Levesque.

Marck, J. 1978. Interim Report of the 1977Laulau Excavations, Saipan, NMI. Manuscripton file. Saipan, Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands: Division of Historic Preserva-tion.

McNeill, J. R. 2005. Putting the dead to work: Anexamination of the use of human bone in pre-historic Guam. In Interaction with the Dead:Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for theNew Millennium (G. F. Rakita, J. E. Buikstra,L. A. Beck, and S. R. Williams, eds.):305–315.Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Moore, D. R. 1983. Measuring Change in Mar-ianas Pottery: The Sequence of Pottery Pro-duction at Tarague, Guam. Unpublished M.A.Thesis. Mangilao, Guam: University of Guam.

Moore, D. R., R. L. Hunter-Anderson, J. R.Amesbury, and E. F. Wells. 1992. Archaeologyat Chalan Piao, Saipan. Mangilao, Guam:Micronesian Archaeological Research Services.

Nunn, P. D. 2005. Reconstructing tropical pa-leoshorelines using archaeological data: Ex-amples from the Fiji Archipelago, southwestPacific. Journal of Coastal Research SpecialIssue 42:15–25.

Ogawa, H. 1993. Lal-lo Shell Middens on the lowerCagayan River. Japan Society for SoutheastAsian Archaeology 13:64–66.

Pellett, M. and A. Spoehr. 1961. Marianas ar-chaeology: Report on an excavation on Tinian.Journal of the Polynesian Society 70:321–325.

Rainbird, P. 1994. Prehistory of the northwesttropical Pacific: The Caroline, Mariana, andMarshall Islands. Journal of World Prehistory8:293–349.

Rainbird P. 2004. The archaeology of Microne-sia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reid, L. 2002. Morphosyntactic evidence for theposition of Chamorro in the Austronesian lan-guage family. In Collected Papers on SoutheastAsian and Pacific Languages (R. S. Bauer,ed.):63–94. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss,J. W. Beck, C. J. H. Bertrand, P. G. Blackwell,C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, K. B. Cutler, andP. E. Damon, et al. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrialradiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 kyr BP. Ra-diocarbon 46:1029–1958.

Reimer, P. J. and R. W. Reimer. 2001. A marinereservoir correction database and on-line inter-face. Radiocarbon 43:461–463.

Russell, S. 1987. Laulau: Its history and His-toric Resources. Saipan: Commonwealth of

138 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Nor

th C

arol

ine

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] At:

12:4

2 22

May

200

8


the Northern Mariana Islands: Department ofCommunity and Cultural Affairs.

Sand, C. 1997. The chronology of Lapita ware inNew Caledonia. Antiquity 71:935–947.

Shutler, R. , Jr. 1999. The relationship of red-slipped and lime-impressed pottery of thesouthern Philippines to that of Micronesia andthe Lapita of Oceania. In Le Pacifique de5000 a 2000 avant le Present: Supplementsa l’Histoire d’une Colonisation (J. C. Galipaudand I. Lilley, eds.):521–529. Paris: Institut pourle Developpement.

Solheim, W. G., III. 1988. The Nusantao hypoth-esis: The origin and spread of Austronesianspeakers. Asian Perspectives 26:77–88.

Solheim, W. G., III. 1996. The Nusantao andnorth-south dispersals. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 15:101–109.

Spenneman, D. H. R. 1987. Availability of shellfishresources on prehistoric Tongatapu, Tonga:Effects of human predation and changing en-vironment. Archaeology in Oceania 22:81–96.

Spoehr, A. 1957. Marianas Prehistory: Archae-ological Survey and Excavations on Saipan,Tinian, and Rota. Fieldiana Vol. 48. Chicago:Chicago Natural History Museum.

Terrell, J. E. 1989. Commentary: What Lapitais and what Lapita isn’t. Antiquity 63:623–626.

Terrell, J. E. 2003. Archaeological inference andethnographic analogies: Rethinking the “Lapitacultural complex.” In Archeology Is Anthro-pology (S. D. Gillespie and D. L. Nichols, eds.).69–76. Archeological Papers of the AmericanAnthropological Association, Vol. 13. Arling-ton: American Anthropological Association.

Thiel, B. 1989. Excavations at the Lal-lo ShellMiddens, northeast Luzon, Philippines. AsianPerspectives 27:71–94.

Thompson, L. M. 1940. The function of lattein the Marianas. Journal of the PolynesianSociety 49:447–465.

Tomonari-Tuggle, M. J. and H. D. Tuggle. 2003.Integrated Cultural Resource ManagementPlan for Andersen Air Force Base, Guam,2003 Update. Honolulu: International Archae-ological Research Institute, Inc.

Ward, G. and J. L. Craib. 1985. PreliminaryReport on Archaeological Research at UnaiBapot, Saipan, during January 1985. Un-published manuscript on file. Saipan, Com-monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:Division of Historic Preservation.

Zobel, E. 2002. The position of Chamorro andPalauan in the Austronesian family tree: Evi-dence from verb morphosyntax. In The Historyand Typology of Western Austronesian VoiceSystems (F. Wouk and M. Ross, eds.):405–434.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.


Refining Earliest Settlement in Remote Oceania: Renewed Archaeological Investigation at Unai Bapot,...

Documents

Transcript of Refining Earliest Settlement in Remote Oceania: Renewed Archaeological Investigation at Unai Bapot,...